Amendment against Gay Marriage

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 2:02 pm Post subject:

How about seperation of church and state.

Marriage is IMO a religious issue. Neither straight or gay marriages should have anything to do with the government. I know that is not the case but in my opinion we should go the other way and get government out of the issue period.

Swass · Guest

"Marriage is IMO a religious issue."

I'm married and I'm an athiest. Is my marriage valid?

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

Swass, nope. Now get out there and score with numerous chicks! Rolling Eyes

streeter · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject:

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

streeter,

jason_ssr · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 2:37 pm Post subject:

It seems many like to find a stance that is disturbing to the religious/conservative and jump on it. Thats fine, as long as its against the norm its cool, right?

Nobody knows what causes one to have homo tendencies. From my experience with gay friends, its more of a psychological or emotional issues that distort their feelings of acceptance, attraction, and other things of social nature. From a religious standpoint its basically confusion because of these issues. But hey, what do I know.

I think civilizatoin always moves in cycles. It starts off in chaos, and the people realize they need structure so they form a monarchy to control the masses. It keeps the peace and the people are happy but it ultimately becomes corrupt. The people then decide they want to be free of the tyranny and revolt for freedom. They succeed and enjoy their freedom and establish a government of the people. Then the freedom starts to eat away at the structure that the society decided it needed in the beginning. Now everyone does what they want in the name of freedom and they are back to the chaos.

It seems we are eating a the structure just because our freedom says we can...

BillJ · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 3:26 pm Post subject:

An interesting story about the issue from a world perspective http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4450827/

"Around the world, countries are coming to terms with how to treat homosexual couples — and the trend in many is toward liberalizing laws." As with many issues involving sex the US is much slower to change than most European countries.

BillJ · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 3:26 pm Post subject:

An interesting story about the issue from a world perspective http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4450827/

"Around the world, countries are coming to terms with how to treat homosexual couples — and the trend in many is toward liberalizing laws." As with many issues involving sex the US is much slower to change than most European countries.

BillJ · Posted: Mar 04, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject:

An interesting story about the issue from a world perspective http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4450827/

"Around the world, countries are coming to terms with how to treat homosexual couples — and the trend in many is toward liberalizing laws." As with many issues involving sex the US is much slower to change than most European countries.

ontrider · Ladies Man Joined: 30 Jul 2003 Posts: 16491 City: Russia

I'm actually with Chales on this one. Gay people can go and be gay all they want, but does that make it right?

Actually, my friend Joe wants to marry his sister, and my friend Bob wants to marry his sister too! Hell, my friend Gord even wants to marry his brother. I say if they want to do it who are we to stop them. I think ol' Jimmy from out in the country wants to marry his favourite sheep too - it's not gonna hurt me, I say go for it!

Sorry, but some people tend to find homosexuality a bit disturbing and perverse.

finkle · Wakeboarder.com Freak Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 4067

well if your sister looks like this then I'm all about it....

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

THe logic that by allowing gay marriage we are therefore opening the door to all types of marriage, including incest, bestiality, and plaural marriage is flawed.

That argument makes the unwarranted and incorrect assumption of if A, then always B. This is not true, and an invalid agrument. So don't make it anymore.

By allowing gay marriage, we are in NO WAY at all opening the door to anything beyond that. That's just reactionary and illogical.

And marriage is not the rock solid, unchanging instution that people think it always was. Women used to be consedered property. When they became PEOPLE others said "well, that's the end of Marriage"

Women used to not be able to vote. When they got the right to vote, people said "Well, that will be the end of marriage"

Women used to be discouraged from work. After ERA, people said..........

Swass · Guest

jason_ssr · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 7:03 am Post subject:

CB, I would agree and say it is flawed logic, however, legal presidence seems rarely based on logic. It seems to be based on case law and if a progression can be established.

Marriage is established in a very specific way. If we show that it can be changed to include gay marriage, then we have established that it is open to multiple interpretation. Then a person now has legal examples of how it can be changed for alternative lifestyles and can move for incest and whatever based on case law. Morally it may be wrong, but legally there will be a good aregument. As we see now, it doesnt have to be moral to be argued for legality. It is opening the door legally whether it is ever seen as moral or not.

Where do you draw the line?

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 7:18 am Post subject:

CB, you're taking that out of context.

They were basing the homosexual marriage on the God Given right to the "pursuit of happiness". Now add that to the statement and you do find you open ugly doors. That's all.

Therefore, polygamy can be a pursuit of happiness.

Bestiality ( I love my blue eyed sheep ) can be a pursuit of happiness.

They were pointing out that the REASON and justification was opening ugly doors.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Dude, that's not right again. I work in the legal field. Precedence doesn't always work that way. There are laws against incest. To make the jump from gay marriage to conclude that that means other forms of marriage will likely follow just isn't right. That won't be a good argument.

Incest would only become tolerated by law when it becomes tolerated by society.

Thomas Jefferson wrote something to the effect that the law of the land should be able to change as man evolves. This is a prime example, Gay Marriage. I don't buy the argument that if you touch marriage at all, then it follows that Marriage will degenerate into other illegal forms of union.

In other words, you seem to be saying that if you alter marriage in any way, then it will degenerate into all these other unacceptable forms. That's just not valid. I'm sure it could, and will, be argued in front of a court, eventually the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court is not going to say "hey, we let gays get married, then this guy should be allowed to marry his dog..." that's just a panicky over reaction, and doesn't follow reason.

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 7:29 am Post subject:

"Incest would only become tolerated by law when it becomes tolerated by society"

now replace Incest with homosexuality and you mayh see where many are going here.

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 7:37 am Post subject:

Swass · Guest

Uh...the ceremony was in German, so it might have been a Neo-Nazi Party induction, for all I know.

Since I don't know how old you are, I'll refrain from delving deeper into your silly remark.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 7:59 am Post subject:

That is one of the most disturbing trends I've seen lately:

"Of course, the Supreme Court has the ability to decide law regardless of what the general population thinks"

Some laws are open to interpretation, yes. But they should not be deciding law, merely interpreting it.

Maybe because many of my friends are pretty much church goers, I find most "in my neck of the woods" are against homosexual marriage ( I absolutely hate the term Gay as it's applied here ). The rest are ambivilant towards it at best.

One thing we do mostly agree on is this should be a State's decision, not a Federal mandate.

As to the other fella that apparently has no clue, When you get "married", you are already in a state of mind to commit to your spouse. Regardless of YOUR feelings about God, you will jump through hoops to make your spouse and most likely her and your family ALL enjoy the moment with you. Have you been to a Marriage ceremony? Mostly, it's do you take each other. Then, perhaps, there's a clause such as "before God I pronounce you... ..." I didn't swear before God or make an oath to God when I got married.

RampageWake · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:08 am Post subject:

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:13 am Post subject:

Show me where the majority has spoken. In real numbers and polls.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:25 am Post subject:

That wasn't pointed at you CB. I honestly beleive it's a minority of folks making this big news right now.

I won't defend Homosexual Marriage. But that's just me.

I will say Bush has really screwed up trying to make this a Federal Constitutional matter.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Interesting. I think a minority are making the news too, on both sides. I suspect the majority doesn't feel strongly either way.

I don't know if Bush screwed up. I think he did because of my beliefs, but was it a bad political move? I don't know, he might have just secured the religious right vote, who were beginning to soften in their support of GW, right?

luckysloan777 · Outlaw Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 225 City: ptown

homosexuals are gayyy

jason_ssr · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:32 am Post subject:

CB, then answer me this: Is incest wrong only because society says it is?

eeven73 · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:35 am Post subject:

Swass · Guest

"Only stating that weddings are overwhelmingly associated with religion."

Maybe in your world. I've been to more secular ceremonies than religious ones.

"Personally I would not partake in any ceremony that I did not speak the language, call me old fashion I guess."

OK - I'm happy to oblige: You're old-fashioned.

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

Leggester · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 8:58 am Post subject:

Only eat shellfish in months that have an "R" in them. Or is it the other way around?

Neognosis · Ladies Man Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster

I before E except on weekends and hollidays and the Month of May
And you'll always be wrong no matter what you say!

--Brian Regan

TubeNazi · Soul Rider Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 368 City: Dallas

Excellent! Cameraboy... Brian Regen is my favorite comedian.

MOOSEN!

jason_ssr · Posted: Mar 05, 2004 10:25 am Post subject:

Meece, Mice, Meesen!